Actual question, do you think preregistering basically this would be a useful thing to be able to show reviewers? IE "I am about to collect this dataset for exploratory purposes, stamped April 27, The Past."
-
-
Yes if I also back-dated the data files. But risk being exposed if I left a trace or if someone manages to get their hands on ethics/IRB documents etc. I don't see it as different than ways to commit fraud with confirmatory prereg, but I might be missing something.
-
We're in agreement. My point is that it seems people think new tools/methods, like prereg make it harder to cheat/game the system, but it certainly doesn't seem that way to me.
-
I don't think it makes it harder for an unethical person to cheat, I think it makes it easier/more standardized for an ethical person to report the features of their work that make it more credible.
-
And it's not and never was designed to stop fraud. What it does do is push a lot of grey practices that academics do now over a line so that doing them in the context of prereg would be fraud.
-
In my ideal world, a reviewer pressuring someone to add unwarranted confirmatory tests would be like a reviewer pressuring someone to claim a larger N. (Not like, to go collect more data, like 'These results would sound better if you had 60 subjects, why don't you write that?)
-
Agreed. Prereg achieves this because forcing HARKing on to an author who preregistered would be forcing them to lie.
-
I'm glad you agree but I'm still concerned many don't get it (for whatever reason — it's not a nuanced point IMHO).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If you were unethical, you could just go ahead and make up your data tho ;)
-
Exactly. No tool or method is safe if somebody wants to game the system.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.